Monday, March 30, 2015

A New "Common Sense" Why We Need a New Progressive Movement

By Dan Riker

"There will always be conflict.
There will always be competing interests that force us to engage in the hard
job of governing ourselves. And so the anti-government thing strikes me as a
perversity. I don't think the founding fathers would recognize it. They were
constructing a government of the people....

Once we start regarding it (government)
as some alien that we can't control, we're done. Democracy's done. That's the
last stage of walking away from the responsibility of governing ourselves. It
we can't control it, if it is going to be a purchased government, if we can't
institute the reforms that are necessary, then we're done. We're done right
now."

Throughout
American history there has been constant tension between two competing theories
of government: the Jeffersonian vision of an agrarian democracy of
semi-autonomous states with the federal government limited primarily to
providing national defense; and the Hamiltonian view of a vibrant industrial
nation unified by a powerful central government. By and large, the Hamiltonian
view won out, but now the nation's ability to meet the challenges of the 21st
Century is threatened by a resurgence of support for something approximating
the Jeffersonian view.

Abraham Lincoln's
statement that government should do for the people what they need done but
cannot do for themselves is particularly relevant to the mass, urban, society
of 320 million people of 21st Century America. But now we are
embroiled in the argument over the proper role of the national government that
is blocking virtually all progress toward solving contemporary problems.
Indeed, we have one of our two major political parties wanting to significantly
weaken the federal government by limiting its scope and reducing its functions,
leaving much to private enterprise, or to the states already so financially
stressed many have reduced vital services. If the Republicans prevail, what
would be the outcome?

Are these not
necessary to a modern civilization? Are these what the people need to have
done, but cannot do for themselves? If the private sector will not do them, or
cannot do them, or should not do them, and the states cannot afford to do them,
who can? The answer should be obvious, but to many it is not.

The arguments
today over the proper role of the federal government in some ways seem no
different from those between Jefferson and Hamilton, but there is a big
difference between the opponents today. Even though Hamilton and Jefferson
disagreed over the means by which it best could be achieved, those two shared
with the other founders - the other authors of the American Dream - a vision of
a nation that provided equality of opportunity and equality under the laws to
all citizens, with no special privileges because of birth or wealth, and a
nation that also protected the people from governmental violations of their
basic rights, and personal freedom.

The opponents in
today’s struggle over the control and direction of the national government no
longer share that vision. The Party that ended slavery no longer believes in
the Constitution's concept of equality of citizenship, or even in the social
contract, the fundamental basis of democracy. The wealthy and the big
corporations now control the Republican Party to obtain greater wealth as well
as to protect themselves against regulation and higher taxes, which are needed
to solve many of the nation's problems. There is little concern for the middle
class and contempt for the poor.

Many of the
largest corporations exhibit the worst characteristics of capitalism. They have
little loyalty to the United States, or to the communities where they are
located, or to their employees, who are viewed almost the same as they were in
the Gilded Age, as interchangeable parts that can be thrown away and easily
replaced. They are interested only in increasing profits, as fast as possible,
at almost any cost, higher and higher stock prices, and greater compensation
for their senior managements.

There is a class
war and the rich and the powerful are winning. As a result, the “American
Dream,” a notion of equality of citizenship, opportunity and basic freedoms for
all, is in great danger.

Republicans oppose
all efforts to help the poor, or to restore the economic security of the middle
class. They want government largesse for themselves and their backers, but none
for anyone else. They are perfectly content with the fact that most of the
great fortunes made in the United States now held by their most important
benefactors largely are due to government largesse, and/or the corruption of
American governments. They continue to press for greater government benefits
for rich and powerful established interests: More mining or drilling on federal
lands, or offshore; permits for pipelines; lower taxes on the rich and on
corporations; government subsidies through tax loopholes and benefits;
suppression of unions; restrictions on voting; and reduction of financial and
environmental regulation. They even seek to make the fundamental bedrock of
democracy, free public education, another source of profit for private
interests.

Their height of
irresponsibility is that they oppose all efforts to combat climate change. They
refuse to accept the scientific evidence of climate change, and its causes,
probably for two major reasons: their fossil fuel sponsors are trying to block
any controls on their industry and its pollution of the environment; and some
of Republicans either are religious fundamentalists, or are beholden to
religious fundamentalists, who have scientific and common sense-defying views
of the world, its history and its origins.

Sen. James Imhofe
(R-OK), who has strong backing from the fossil fuel industry, and now heads the
Senate Environment Committee, wrote a book, The Greatest Hoax: How the
Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, [iii]
that was published by one of the most extreme rightwing organizations, World
Net Daily, through their book subsidiary, that argues, without any proof, that
the entire climate change movement is an organized hoax among thousands of
scientists around the world. His principal argument against the efforts to curb
climate change is that it is an interference with God's work. In 2012 he said
on a radio interview program:

Well
actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth
remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer,
day and night,’ my point is, God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to
think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the
climate is to me outrageous.[iv]

What climate
change scientists are saying is that at the present rate of increase the
world's temperatures could reach a point when no actions could stop continuing
warming, and at some point man could not survive on Earth. However, that does
not mean that various kinds of plant life and other forms of life may not be
able to live. Thus, Sen. Imhofe does not seem to realize - if he actually is
being serious - that there is nothing inconsistent with what climate scientists
are saying and what was written in Genesis 8:22. There is nothing in that
passage that guarantees that man will survive "as long as the earth
remains."

Republicans
supposedly stand for conservative ideals of greater
personal freedom, expanded
economic opportunities, and free
markets, but they are skillful in hiding the fact that they really don't. They
have made millions believe the falsehood that they are the party of smaller
government, lower taxes, and a stronger economy. Using the “Big Lie” technique
of repeating untruths over and over until they are believed, they have been
very successful in stirring up the suspicion of government that is in the DNA
of Americans. They employ various techniques of “dog whistle” politics to
ignite some of the nascent racism, nativism and misogynism in their base,
unifying them into a major force of opposition to virtually all progressive
programs, even though many of the poorer members of their base are, or would
be, major beneficiaries of such programs.

Even though
Republicans repeatedly describe the Democrats as the “tax and spend” party,
Republicans have not been better managers of the economy than the Democrats.
Republican Presidents since 1980 have increased the federal budget
substantially more than the Democratic Presidents and six of the eight tax
increases since 1980 occurred during Republican presidencies.

Reagan increased
federal spending by 68%, from an annual budget of $678 billion in his first
year to $1.143 trillion in his last. In George H.W. Bush's last year the budget
had increased to $1.4 trillion, an increase of 23% in four years. During Bill Clinton's eight years, the
budget increased 32% to $1.86 trillion. Then there was George W. Bush, who
managed to nearly double the budget in his eight years to $3,5 trillion, an
increase of 88.9%. In Barack Obama's six years, the budget has increased only
18% to $4.2 trillion at the end of 2014.[v]

The national debt
under Reagan went from $997 billion in his first year to $2.86 trillion in his
last, an increase of 186%. His deficits were dramatically larger than of any
President since World War II. Instead of government revenues increasing as a
result of the expected stimulus to the economy that his tax cuts were supposed
to cause under the theories of the supply-side economists, revenues decreased,
and did not recover until near the end of his presidency, after some tax hikes.

Even though
Reagan's Republican successor, George H.W. Bush, was the last Republican
President to increase taxes, he still increased the national debt in four years
by 54%. In his eight years of enormous mismanagement in office, George W. Bush
increased the national debt by 105%. It was $5.8 trillion in his first year and
$11.9 trillion in his last, and the $1.4 trillion dollar deficit in his last
year was the highest one-year deficit in the nation's history, even topping
inflation-adjusted deficits during World War II.

By contrast, in
his eight years in office, the Democrat Bill Clinton increased the national
debt by only 31% and he had budget surpluses in his last four years. Barack
Obama came into office at the height of the bank crisis and financial meltdown.
Despite that, the increase in the national debt in his first six years has been
only 49% and he has reduced the annual deficit from George W. Bush's last year
by 65% to $492 billion.

Every one of the
financial crises since 1900 that caused economic chaos in the nation occurred
when Republicans held the Presidency. These include the Panic of 1907 that
caused a huge recession and ultimately resulted in the creation of the Federal
Reserve System, the Great Crash of 1929 that caused the Great Depression, and
the bank crisis of 2008 that caused the Great Recession.

Republican
economic policies of the past 30 years, which encourage companies to outsource
to foreign countries, caused the losses of millions of jobs, most of them
good-paying middle class jobs. Their tax cuts and their opposition to tax
increases have caused the national government to be deficient of the revenue it
needs to provide the services it has to provide.

The economy has
grown better under Democratic presidents. Republicans have held the White House
for 20 of the past 33 years and during those years the national economy grew a
total of 52.5%, an annual average of 2.6%. In the 13 years Democrats have held
the White House, the economy grew a total of 44.9%, an annual average of 3.2%.

Most of the
federal government programs that have had the greatest benefit for the greatest
number of people in the United States since 1900 were initiated during three
brief periods: the Progressive period from 1901 to World War I; during Franklin
Roosevelt's New Deal, prior to World War II; and in the very brief time before
Lyndon Johnson's presidency was destroyed by the Vietnam War in the 1960s. Most
of the programs of those periods are enormously successful and popular. Most
Americans today view food and drug regulation, Social Security, Medicare,
Medicaid, Head Start, and many more as essential government services.

Each progressive
period began as the result of a calamity. However, in each case, the conditions
were ripe for change. Two of the three progressive periods were set off by
Presidential assassinations, of William McKinley in 1901 and of John F. Kennedy
in 1963. The election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 was the result the Great
Crash of 1929 and the resulting Great Depression.

Each calamity
brought in a dynamic leader with his political party in complete control of
Congress, and each was in a position to have progressive legislation supported
and passed. The programs of these th4ree progressive periods have been
enormously successful and of great benefit to the vast majority of the American
people.

The Nixon, Ford
and Carter presidencies, between 1969 and 1981, were full of crises, scandals
and economic disruption that included high oil prices, near-record inflation,
and high unemployment. Government seemed incapable of coping competently with
the nation's problems, and someone came along who said the New Deal and liberal
ideas no longer worked, that there was another way, and, by a small popular
vote margin - but a landslide in electoral votes - the people bought that
argument.

As it turned out,
the radically conservative economic policies of Ronald Reagan - basically a
return to the Social Darwinist “laissez-faire” policies of the Gilded Age - did
not solve our problems. They made them far worse, but the extent of the damage
only recently began to be fully realized. As with other periods of
laissez-faire government, there was significant economic growth, but as with
those other periods, the benefits of that growth went almost entirely to the
rich and to the big corporations. While taxes on the rich were lowered
dramatically, they actually increased on the middle class. The average hourly
wage declined during Reagan's Presidency, and the huge movement of jobs out of
the country began.

None of Reagan's
successors significantly altered the nation's economic policies, and now we
know that 30 years of these policies have hollowed out the middle class,
increased poverty, created the greatest economic disparity in modern history,
and weakened the economy of the nation, and, as a result, our security.

Barack Obama's
slogan of "Change We Can Believe In," struck a powerful chord with
millions of Americans. He did not bring the change he promised, and that has
been disillusioning to many of his supporters, and has weakened the Democratic
Party's appeal. But the fact that the people so clearly wanted change shows
that we have reached another of those times in our history when the situation
is ripe for change, and when change is necessary to our survival as a
democratic capitalistic society.

The "common
sense" answer to America's economic and political problems is obvious.
There is only one type of government that will do what needs to be done: a
progressive government. That can only come to pass if progressives take control
of the Democratic Party and then win elections at all levels of government.
Republicans must be driven out of office from the city council to the U.S.
Senate and House of Representatives.

The opportunity exists once again, as it did in 1776,
"to begin the world over again." The choice this time is better than
it was in 1776. We do not have to have a violent revolution, but there is no
guarantee we will not have one if the present course of the country is not
altered. Peaceful change can occur, but it will take more than a political
slogan, or one leader. This is not a campaign that can be fought once, in one
election, with any expectation of lasting victory. A government run by
progressives for an extended period of time on behalf of all the people will
only come from a concentrated, long-term campaign that captures the minds and
the hearts of the majority of Americans.

Links to audio clips of Theodore Roosevelt speeches

TR in the West

Click on photo to go to the Theodore Roosevelt Center at Dickinson State University

Robert LaFollette

Click on his photo to see a film, with sound, of a campaign speech of Robert LaFollette in 1924, when he ran for President on the Progressive Party ticket, urging the people to be “aggressive” in resisting corporate power and influence. He received 17% of the vote and carried only Wisconsin. He died the next year. The father of Progressivism, Robert LaFollette was the first to use the word “Progressive” to describe the movement he started in Wisconsin. He first was Governor of Wisconsin and then was a Senator. From Wikipedia: “In 1957, a Senate Committee selected La Follette as one of the five greatest U.S. Senators, along with Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, and Robert Taft. A 1982 survey asking historians to rank the "ten greatest Senators in the nation's history" based on "accomplishments in office" and "long range impact on American history," placed La Follette first, tied with Henry Clay.”

Definition of Progressivism

In using the term “progressive” I mean what it meant in its early years, a philosophy of government, or governance, of the proper role of government in a democracy, and how public officials carry out their responsibilities to the people. Progressive government can be a force for good when it limits its activities to doing those things that need to be done but cannot be done by the people for themselves. The duty of public officials is to all the people, not to special interests.

Progressivism is not a synonym for liberalism, as it often is used today. Today's progressives probably are liberal in many, if not most, of their beliefs, but not all liberals are progressives. Although a descendant of classic liberalism, true progressivism is not ideological. It is pragmatic. It is neither liberal nor conservative, nor Democrat nor Republican. It is not capitalistic, nor socialistic. It seeks to make the existing system work, and that sometimes means protecting capitalism from itself by taming its most aggressive features through legislation and regulation.

Most of the early Progressives were Republicans; the later ones, Democrats. Progressives are problem-solvers and they will borrow ideas from both political parties, as well as from any other source, if the ideas present a practical solution to an important problem.

Basic pragmatic progressivism is more consistent with the American character than any other governmental philosophy, and its historic leaders have been - sometimes, for other reasons, only briefly - among the most popular leaders the nation ever has had. We can solve our major problems with another progressive period of government. I believe this can be made to happen with the right kind of leadership, programs and strategies, which I describe in this book.

- Introduction, Let's Do What Works and Call it Capitalism, by Dan Riker. Excerpts of this as-year unpublished book are posted on this blog, on http://www.danriker.blogspot.com and on http://www.dailykos.com.